2013/9/2 Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com> > Hi! > > > I would not agree with your argument that it should be introduced > because it > > is requested by real people for years and it is simple to add. Isn't that > > pretty much the same as "because we can"? > > No, it is pretty much the opposite. It is "because people need it". >
I am a user and I don't need it and named parameters makes it obsolete anyway. Now it would be interesting, if "people" would "need" named parameters less, than the ability to pass "default" instead of "null" (or whatever).... > > > IMO we should wait with this RFC if Nikita is willing to write an RFC for > > named parameters including an implementation afterwards, because I think > > We've been talking about it for years (last time here: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/namedparameters) but nothing happened. But I'm > certainly willing to give it a chance, if it is happening. I just not > want for all the effort to be wasted if it's not and we'd be left > without a solution for a real problem again. > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- github.com/KingCrunch
